EA is not evil.

[Rooster Cogburn]

'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

To be fair, they never said that. They did say that all their games have (and will have) an some online service. This is a very far fetch from "no singleplayer" and I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place. The original quote could be somewhat misleading but very little reading comprehension is needed to notice that single player is still alive. Also, "online service" does not even mean bolted on multiplayer as I've seen other people suggest. Here, however, the original quote even makes it clear - it can be any sort of thing that requires online connection - leaderboards, DLC, ME2's Ceberus Network, social networking integration - these all count as online services.

Now, I don't really like it but to say "no singleplayer" is just false.

You're right about the meaning of the quote, but the reason for the confusion is very, very clear. The quote doesn't literally mean EA does not make single player games, which is why the guy shouldn't have literally said that exact thing. Whatever the guy was trying to say it was a very badly worded comment that also demonstrated a lack of concern for or understanding of gamers' sensibilities. At least for the type of gamers that rant of message boards. As I tried to argue below that news post, the reaction isn't really about the literal meaning of the quote. It's about the direction EA has been taking which that quote represents, and the motivation behind it.

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

 

[Yopaz]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

 

[Judgment90]

yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?

 

[ThunderCavalier]

My problem with EA is not that they're a ruthless corporation that will do most anything to get money. Hell, you have to respect them for doing some drastic measures to keep them afloat and competing with Activision-Blizzard.

But that's also why I despise them. Their practices are good for business, but you can't deny that they're not at all considering the well-being of a developer's creative vision, nor a gamer's convenience.

The only thing EA sees is a dollar sign, which is good for the employees' jobs and for the company's future, but it's certainly not a future I want to be part of.

 

[DoPo]

'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

To be fair, they never said that. They did say that all their games have (and will have) an some online service. This is a very far fetch from "no singleplayer" and I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place. The original quote could be somewhat misleading but very little reading comprehension is needed to notice that single player is still alive. Also, "online service" does not even mean bolted on multiplayer as I've seen other people suggest. Here, however, the original quote even makes it clear - it can be any sort of thing that requires online connection - leaderboards, DLC, ME2's Ceberus Network, social networking integration - these all count as online services.

Now, I don't really like it but to say "no singleplayer" is just false.

You're right about the meaning of the quote, but the reason for the confusion is very, very clear. The quote doesn't literally mean EA does not make single player games, which is why the guy shouldn't have literally said that exact thing. Whatever the guy was trying to say it was a very badly worded comment that also demonstrated a lack of concern for or understanding of gamers' sensibilities. At least for the type of gamers that rant of message boards. As I tried to argue below that news post, the reaction isn't really about the literal meaning of the quote. It's about the direction EA has been taking which that quote represents, and the motivation behind it.

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

Yeah, he worded it badly. He meant "offline" rather than "single player", or more precisely, the intersection between the two. However, reading the very next sentences does reveal what he meant by the words. There was even a clarification later that day (or maybe the next one) for the those,who didn't catch on, and yet all that is meaningless if they are going to disregard the entire thing entirely. It's like people don't want to know stuff, but instead believe things they make up. I thought the rational human being would at least double check, if their information is correct, rather than spread out the falseness.

 

[Bobic]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Yeah, this seems like a good place to end it. You are right, both of our definitions are different and (while trying to objectively remove myself from my opinions and everything said in this discussion) neither of them are wrong. Admittedly it's probably impossible to perfectly define something like evil, it's not gravity, it's not a physical concept. It's a deeply subjective judgement on the actions and motives of humans. So yeah, agree to disagree. It's been fun.

 

[Yopaz]

Stop sidestepping the issue. Bottom line is: doing things for profit can be deliberate wrongdoing, and arguing otherwise in defense of EA is not a convincing thing to say. If you're not going to see that there's no reason in going further here.

I am not arguing that EA is doing something good here. I am not defending their business practice. I am simply stating that they're not evil.

Their business practice is reckless, it's unethical and all that. It leaves lesser employees in fear of when they'll have to search for a new job.

If you have any actual evidence of EA deliberately harming companies you shouldn't be here. You should report EA's violations.

EA has done a lot of nasty shit, but I am not going to waste my time discussing conspiracy theories with you on EA's evil empire. I have better things to do. Like watching the grass grow.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365?

I am sorry I find fault not with the guy saying it, but with the people who want to perpetuate the reputation that you are saying right here. Journalism at its worst. Mob news tell them what they want to hear. There is a reason the quote is cut of at "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience." In the article. Quotemining in order to to rile up the masses.

The escapist article did not cut off the quote.

I don't deny that sort of thing happens, but the quote you just posted is a gaffe. It's badly worded. If the escapist put that quote in an article describing EA you would say it is intentionally inflammatory. The reputation I'm describing is well deserved. And it's not only about the exact meaning of the text. It's what the quote means in the grand scheme of things. It's indicative of an attitude that a lot of people don't like, so they are raging about the issues they associate with that attitude.

Yeah, he worded it badly. He meant "offline" rather than "single player", or more precisely, the intersection between the two. However, reading the very next sentences does reveal what he meant by the words. There was even a clarification later that day (or maybe the next one) for the those,who didn't catch on, and yet all that is meaningless if they are going to disregard the entire thing entirely. It's like people don't want to know stuff, but instead believe things they make up. I thought the rational human being would at least double check, if their information is correct, rather than spread out the falseness.

Even knowing what he was trying to say, I still find it reasonable cause for complaint. Even though Mr. Romney has never declared "I hereby disrespect the underprivileged" it's something I infer from his meaning and the context of events.

I do agree that having your biases confirmed is way more fun than learning the truth lol.

 

[Subscriptism]

An EA apologist...GET HIM!